Back
2017 Supreme(Pat) 457
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.
Reliance Communication Limited - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India through the Secretary & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18041 of 2014
Decided On : 23-03-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Mr. Shshil Kumar and Mr. Dipak Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate., Mr. Awadesh Kumar Pandey, SCG-2 and Mr. Ravender Kumar Sharma, CGC., Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the appropriate Government for a controlled industry, as notified under the Industrial Disputes Act, holds jurisdiction over disputes, and only the labor courts/tribunals constituted by the appropriate Government have the authority to adjudicate such disputes.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act - Jurisdiction - Sections 2(a)(i), 2-A(2), 7(1), 7-A(1), 10(1)(d) - The court held that the Industrial Tribunal at Muzaffarpur lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by the workman, who was employed in a company providing telecommunication service on the strength of having received a license from the Department of Telecommunication under Section 4 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, which is notified as a controlled industry.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an order dismissing their application with a preliminary objection on the point of jurisdiction by the Industrial Tribunal, Muzaffarpur. The workman, employed in a telecommunication company, raised a dispute regarding his transfer and subsequent abandonment of service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Industrial Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute directly raised by the workman, as the appropriate Government for the petitioner-company, a controlled industry, was the Central Government.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Industrial Tribunal at Muzaffarpur had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by the workman employed in a controlled industry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing that the appropriate Government for a controlled industry is the Central Government, and only the concerned labor courts/tribunals constituted by the appropriate Government have jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order dated 04.04.2014 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Muzaffarpur in favor of the petitioner.
Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.
1. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 04.04.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Muzaffarpur in I.D. Case No. 01 of 2013 whereby the petitioner's application with preliminary objection on the point of jurisdiction has been dismissed.
2. Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that telecommunication sector is a controlled industry as notified by the Central Government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'I.D. Act') and, therefore, the appropriate Government with respect to constitution of industrial tribunal and entrustment of industrial disputes concerning controlled industry is the Central Government. He submitted that the Industrial Tribunal, Muzaffarpur constituted by the State Government had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute directly raised by the workman (respondent no.4) before it, as any industrial dispute arising out of employment of a controlled industry can only be entertained by a tribunal constituted by the Central Government.
3. Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, learned Advocate submitted that the workman being an employee of the petitioner-company had already raised industrial dispute before the Central Government and subsequently filed the present case by suppressing the aforesaid fact.
4. He submitted that the workman was initially appointed in the year 2007 as a consultant in one of the group companies of the petitioner namely, Reliance Next Link Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, in the year 2009, he was absorbed in the employment of the petitioner-company and was posted at Muzaffarpur. Due to certain business exigency, on 31.08.2012, he was transferred to Aurangabad, Bihar, where he was asked to join by 03.09.2012, but instead of joining his new place of posting, he immediately sent an e-mail that he was unable to join his duties on account of his ill health. He requested the management to allow him to work till his recovery. The management allowed him to continue to work at Muzaffarpur for the next one month. Thereafter, the workman failed to join at Aurangabad. The petitioner company sent another letter to the workman on 05.10.2012 asking him to immediately join at Aurangabad.
5. He submitted that subsequently the workman filed a complaint dated 08.10.2012 before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Muzaffarpur, alleging therein that when he raised demands before the management regarding his service condition and other legal demands, he was transferred from Muzaffarpur to Aurangabad with unfair motive to harass and torture him mentally. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Muzaffarpur, subsequently transferred the said complaint to the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Muzaffarpur by letter dated 17.10.2012 for necessary action.
6. It is submitted that when the workman did not pay any heed to the aforesaid letter dated 05.10.2012, the petitioner-company sent another letter dated 11.10.2012 followed by letter dated 18.10.2012 whereby the workman was informed that if he failed to join immediately, it would be deemed that he had voluntarily abandoned his service. Once again, the workman failed to respond to the said letters. When the workman did not respond to the aforesaid notices and also failed to join his duty without any intimation, it was presumed that the workman had voluntarily abandoned his service. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 30,519/- was credited in his account on 12.12.2012 by way of full and final settlement of his dues with the petitioner-company.
7. It is submitted that on the basis of the complaint filed by the workman, a conciliation proceeding was initiated by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), wherein the petitioner-company had submitted its reply. The Conciliation Officer by letter dated 14.03.2013 submitted his report, wherein he declared that the proceeding ended in failure of conciliation.
8. It is submitted by Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, learned Advocate that the petiti
